A presidency would cost the Taxpayers as much as the Royal family, but bring nothing back in to the treasury's coppers. But the Royal family brings in a large amount of money both directly through crown estate and through benefits to the wider economy.

Economically speaking the monarchy makes much more sense than a republic.

(Original post by S1L3NTPR3Y)
A presidency would cost the Taxpayers as much as the Royal family, but bring nothing back in to the treasury's coppers. But the Royal family brings in a large amount of money both directly through crown estate and through benefits to the wider economy.

Economically speaking the monarchy makes much more sense than a republic.

I imagine The Kim family say similar things in North Korea. Where do you think the royal family got the crown estate from? Oh wait a violent conquest over the people already here.

(Original post by MostUncivilised)
In respect of a bill that is yet to pass through the UK parliament, do you think the Queen is in a position to negotiate and be, essentially, an independent centre of power?

Specifically, she was advised emphatically by her British ministers in respect of their role as the advisors to the Queen for the Australian states and their role as ministerial advisers in respect of the United Kingdom (which would pass the complementary Australia Act... it had to be in both the UK and Australian parliament), and by her Australian ministers, state and commonwealth.

In the end, the intransigence of the monarch forced the British and Australian governments to concede that the Queen would be able to exercise viceregal powers in respect of the states when she was physically present there. (The idea is that she didn't want to receive conflicting advice... for example, when she was present in New South Wales, be advised by the NSW Premier to deliver a speech as Queen-in-Parliament attacking the Commonwealth government, or vice-versa)

Now, as a matter of principle, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing; it's actually a fairly sensible position from the monarch. But how we came to this position (i.e. complete refusal by the palace to accept advice) completely and utterly shatters the argument that the monarch and palace have no power and that they are mere vestigial creatures.

How do you figure? What vestigial power did the Queen exercise, apart from chewing their ear off? If they were sufficiently determined they could tell the Queen to shut and up accept the inevitable anyway. Or perhaps they came to the same conclusion as you, and saw the Queen's position as sensible. Clearly they didn't think it was worth enough for them to do so, so the responsibility for the outcome is theirs.

Personally, I think it's important a head of state has some residual but real power, but the question is then... how are they accountable for the exercise of that power? My point is that this is far more complex (and interesting!) than the usual (childish, naive) monarchist arguments that the Queen is just a nice old granny who probably watches East Enders and has no real influence or personal agency in power politics and constitutional issues.

Chiefly, it's denial of power that the Queen's most useful for. The vestigial powers she has are normally exercised on the advice of the government and mostly that advice is constitutionally sound. But the fact that it's not inherently the PM's power but he still has to apply for its use is an important marker that it's a privilege, not a right, for them to use that power. The are occasions - in severe constitutional emergencies, I might add - where the Queen would be entitled to decline their use. Mercifully, those occasions are rare.

I would add, I don't seek the abolition of the monarchy. At least, I think it can be tenable. Monarchists never seem to latch onto some of the most persuasive arguments in favour, such as the great diplomatic asset the Queen is when she hosts foreign dignitaries at Buckingham Palace. Foreign officials and heads of state absolutely love it.

But I don't think it's tenable in its current form; there is simply far too little accountability and information around exercise of the executive power, like kissing hands (which could be exercised by the Privy Council instead) and Queen's Consent (rather than assent), or the FoI exemptions, or the claim that all the dealings between the Queen and Government must be in secret, or around the Royal Finances (it would be very easy to give the Queen a fixed salary, and allow any official business to be paid for by the state on a case-by-case basis).

(Original post by gladders)
How do you figure? What vestigial power did the Queen exercise, apart from chewing their ear off?

It puts paid to the idea that the Queen always and absolutely follows ministerial advice and has no independent agency or political personality (political in the sense of constitutional or governmental, rather than party political) of her own

If they were sufficiently determined they could tell the Queen to shut and up accept the inevitable anyway

They did. The palace point-blank refused. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing, but it completely belies the claim that the Queen is just a nice old lady munching on her TV dinners and watching East Enders, rather than a savvy, pragmatic occupant of the throne who takes her role seriously.

I would add, I don't seek the abolition of the monarchy. At least, I think it can be tenable. Monarchists never seem to latch onto some of the most persuasive arguments in favour, such as the great diplomatic asset the Queen is when she hosts foreign dignitaries at Buckingham Palace. Foreign officials and heads of state absolutely love it.

Oh, I know all about that but it tends not to impress republicans, who totally undersell it.

But I don't think it's tenable in its current form; there is simply far too little accountability and information around exercise of the executive power, like kissing hands (which could be exercised by the Privy Council instead) and Queen's Consent (rather than assent), or the FoI exemptions, or the claim that all the dealings between the Queen and Government must be in secret, or around the Royal Finances (it would be very easy to give the Queen a fixed salary, and allow any official business to be paid for by the state on a case-by-case basis).

Monarchists do themselves no favours by defending the indefensible.

Well for what it's worth, you're one of the most thoughtful posters I've seen on here in a long time. I think these things are defensible IMO, but I'd need a wall of text to go into proper detail and I have chores to do!

(Original post by gladders)
Chiefly, it's denial of power that the Queen's most useful for. The vestigial powers she has are normally exercised on the advice of the government and mostly that advice is constitutionally sound. But the fact that it's not inherently the PM's power but he still has to apply for its use is an important marker that it's a privilege, not a right, for them to use that power. The are occasions - in severe constitutional emergencies, I might add - where the Queen would be entitled to decline their use. Mercifully, those occasions are rare.

Do you think it's defensible for the Queen to have failed to assent to the reading of the parliamentary bill on war powers in 1999?

Clearly, she failed to assent based on ministerial advice, but that advice is secret, so it's a secret exercise of unaccountable power by Number 10 using the monarch's prerogative powers. Because of that, we can never distinguish between when it's Number 10 being despotic or genuinely the Queen overreaching in her own personal interests.

It's for reasons like this I believe the monarchy needs urgent reform, or failing that, abolition

(Original post by gladders)
Well for what it's worth, you're one of the most thoughtful posters I've seen on here in a long time. I think these things are defensible IMO, but I'd need a wall of text to go into proper detail and I have chores to do!

(Original post by MostUncivilised)
American tourists would stop coming here if there was no longer a monarchy?

That must explain why I never see any Americans in Paris.

That's not what I said.

Less of them would come and spend money, because there'd be less for them to see. I'm not suggesting that tourism, regardless of nationality, would cease altogether if we got rid of the monarchy. That's ridiculous.

Less of them would come and spend money, because there'd be less for them to see. I'm not suggesting that tourism, regardless of nationality, would cease altogether if we got rid of the monarchy. That's ridiculous.

Indeed it is ridiculous.

So... you now need to demonstrate, what proportion of tourism to the UK comes only on the basis that we have a monarch? How many tourists would stop coming if we changed our constitution?

While the abolition of the monarchy would not reduce this to zero, I find it very difficult to believe that so much would be spent if it was to happen. Such articles prove the American fascination with the monarchy:

I do not profess this to be concrete proof that the Americans would stop visiting if the monarchy was abolished, because it isn't. The only way I could prove that is if the monarchy actually was abolished and tourist numbers were recorded.
However, common sense and reading the articles will tell you that the Americans are obsessed. I am unsure whether the numbers of Americans touring the royal palaces is recorded and made public, but if you still wish to remain obstinate then I will be more than happy to submit a freedom of information request to prove my point.
Of course, much of this is pure speculation, I don't actually know for sure what would happen to tourist numbers if the monarchy was to be abolished, and neither do you. I can, however, make an educated guess based on factual knowledge and consideration of the facts and figures. 2.1 million of them visited in 2010. I do not believe that number would have been as high if we didn't have a monarchy - no palace tours, no queen, nothing. And interest in Britain would be not nearly as high if the royals did not exist - you only had to watch them when the Royal Wedding was on, and now with the announcement of the Royal baby they're infatuated.

(Original post by paddlesnap)
I do not profess this to be concrete proof that the Americans would stop visiting if the monarchy was abolished, because it isn't. The only way I could prove that is if the monarchy actually was abolished and tourist numbers were recorded

Not only is it not concrete proof, it's basically just an account of the number of American tourists who go to Britain, upon which you built a totally unsupportable assumption based on gut feelings and vague intuition.

Solid evidence or please abandon your ridiculous assertions, all of which are based on nothing more than your feelings.

(Original post by gladders)
You base the method of appointment on what you want the position to do, not the other way round.

As a ceremonial Head of State is meant to be a living symbol of the country which is prohibited from entering the political arena and challenging Parliament or government for power, or of using their political prejudices to influence and affect the workings of Parliament or government, monarchy suits this job just fine.

I fail to see why an elected commoner couldn't do it just as well. Is no non-Windsor fit to rule?

While the abolition of the monarchy would not reduce this to zero, I find it very difficult to believe that so much would be spent if it was to happen. Such articles prove the American fascination with the monarchy:

I do not profess this to be concrete proof that the Americans would stop visiting if the monarchy was abolished, because it isn't. The only way I could prove that is if the monarchy actually was abolished and tourist numbers were recorded.
However, common sense and reading the articles will tell you that the Americans are obsessed. I am unsure whether the numbers of Americans touring the royal palaces is recorded and made public, but if you still wish to remain obstinate then I will be more than happy to submit a freedom of information request to prove my point.
Of course, much of this is pure speculation, I don't actually know for sure what would happen to tourist numbers if the monarchy was to be abolished, and neither do you. I can, however, make an educated guess based on factual knowledge and consideration of the facts and figures. 2.1 million of them visited in 2010. I do not believe that number would have been as high if we didn't have a monarchy - no palace tours, no queen, nothing. And interest in Britain would be not nearly as high if the royals did not exist - you only had to watch them when the Royal Wedding was on, and now with the announcement of the Royal baby they're infatuated.

Your turn.

I point you and other believers in royal tourism once more to the official Visit England tourist figures. Not one royal residence makes it onto the top 20 in England, and only one makes it to the top 20 in London (at number 13 I believe)-so your argument is clearly nonsense. To suggest that Britain's only appeal to tourists is the Windsors is grossly insulting to everything else we have to offer, besides being factually inaccurate.

The Americans' fondness of the UK stems from a lot more than just Lizzie.

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
I do not have a problem with the privilege that the monarchy exhibits. Right now, nothing about it is broken.

That is only your personal evaluation of the Monarchy, I as a republican hold an entirely different view. I cannot believe the Monarchy will last forever, even with the tabloid deification of the royals, it is ridiculous to think that given the opportunity to take total power again, the Monarchy would not. Democracy should have no take with Monarchy, and Britains waterered down version of democracy,is an insult to us republicans.

I am a little surprised by the +40% vote for removing the Monarchy, as Republican vote share is always given as about 20%. I suppose this is due to more younger people on TSR, which is a good trend for the Yes vote of the future.

(Original post by nimrodstower)
That is only your personal evaluation of the Monarchy, I as a republican hold an entirely different view. I cannot believe the Monarchy will last forever, even with the tabloid deification of the royals, it is ridiculous to think that given the opportunity to take total power again, the Monarchy would not. Democracy should have no take with Monarchy, and Britains waterered down version of democracy,is an insult to us republicans.

It may not last forever, but hardly any political system does. If you think the United States or the European Union or any of the other republican paradises will be here in a thousand years then you're deluded. However, we have to go with what works. Britain does not have a "watered down version of democracy". In fact, our democratic system and constitutional monarchy have survived centuries of revolutionary plotting against it. Some of the freest and most successful countries in the world are constitutional monarchies - Sweden, Japan, Canada, etc. I am not of the opinion that democracy = more freedom, and if a semi-democratic system is more stable and propitious to human freedom than a fully democratic system then I will support the former. And damned be any republicans (who, I shall remind you, are in a minority in this country) who feel insulted.